An atheists perspective on how the universe came from "nothing"
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
This is still a lie, and atheism remains the lack or absence of belief in any deity, and nothing more, the rest is your preconceived bias against atheism.
Christ, this is not that complex, atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity, thus to claim atheism implies a belief is asinine nonsense, this DOES NOT MEAN that an atheist cannot hold beliefs. Why are you unable to grasp simple word definitions?
@Apollo: "I want to know what atheists think proactively, as opposed to just negatively. " Herein lies your confusion.... "There ARE NO ATHEISTS!" There is no group called Atheists. There are individual people who call themselves atheist but this is not a term for any sort of organization. This is a term, used by religions, to slur non-believers. All we mean when we say we are Atheist is that we are "Non-believers." If you want organized atheism you should go to a group of "Brights, Free Thinkers, Satanists, or Humanists." Most of the people in these groups are atheistic. They have actual groups with actual mission statements and many of the members are atheists. "They are not Atheist Groups however. They are "Brights, Humanists, Free Thinkers, and Satanists. Oh... I was going to say there are no groups revolving around atheists but then I remembered there is an Atheist Church. You should go find their website and bug them. It's called "Sunday Assembly." It may be the closest thing you can possibly get to a bunch of Atheists with a leader. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_Assembly
You are wasting your time with your bullshit on this site. You are addressing shit that just isn't here. You are making inane assertions that have nothing at all to do with atheism. In each and every post you display an ever growing degree of ignorance. You just don't get it and it is completely obvious to each and every one of us. Your definitions and perceptions of atheists and atheism ARE WRONG!
"I want to know what atheists think proactively, as opposed to just negatively."
I am neither proactive or negative on this subject. I waste little personal time (only in this forum) questioning an imaginary friend. In my previous theistic days, I did not set out to be an atheist, but rather have a closer contact and understanding of my definition of a god.
"Some have reacted strongly to 'the only thing that exists is nature' and seem to deny that is a valid implication of disbelief in God."
Nice attempt at attempting to reverse the burden of proof. The one and only subject atheists are categorized as "having a lack of belief in a god'. It is not nature versus the supernatural, it is one simple question:
Can you provide any evidence to support the god claim?
David quoted and wrote,
""Some have reacted strongly to 'the only thing that exists is nature' and seem to deny that is a valid implication of disbelief in God."
Nice attempt at attempting to reverse the burden of proof."
This is enlightening as now you are more clear about what you hope to achieve. You want to avoid the 'burden of proof'. In doing so, it seems you have painted yourself in a corner. You are assuming there is such a thing as 'burden of proof' and you want to impose that on theists. That goes nowhere as one of your previous and correct comments indicate: previously you wrote something to the effect we can not know anything pre-big bang. I agree. So when I say I believe in a creator God, its not a claim, its a belief that can't be proven.
Hence, your question, "Can you provide any evidence to support the god claim?" is a non-starter. We have already agreed we can not know, so your question is foolish.
This is why the most important thing Krauss said, namely, we all have beliefs, we all have preconceptions. Specific beliefs, preconceptions, are pre-knowledge preconceptions. So asking someone to prove a pre-knowledge preconception is absurd.
Belief/disbelief/lack of belief are all pre-knowledge ontological preconceptions that can't be proven.
In sum, when you say we can not know anything of the pre-big bang context you are correct. But then you get into a circular absurdity when you demand proof for something you already have stated can't be known.
Nice attempt to redirect back to the beginning of the thread the same old claim... why don’t you try answering Sheldon at the last page?!?!
When did David do that?
"But then you get into a circular absurdity when you demand proof for something you already have stated can't be known."
Of course I do not accept a god exists, that is the very clear and concise definition of an atheist.
But you are a theist, all I am requesting is you provide evidence in this imaginary friend you believe exists.
Then you should be asking each individual, not making generic assumptions based on your own bias in favour of theism, and the current trend among apologist like William Lane Craig to try and reverse the burden of proof onto disbelief, rather than where it belongs, which is with belief.
The fact you can demonstrate no objective evidence for your belief, is a sufficient reason for me to disbelieve your claim. I am under no epistemological obligation to justify my atheism beyond that simple fact, especially as your god myth is unfalsifiable, another reason to reject it as meaningless.
Sheldon wrote, "Then you should be asking each individual...."
I am asking you.
Sheldon wrote, " not making generic assumptions based on your own bias in favour of theism..."
Interesting comment which triggered a recollection of an atheist prof I had some time ago. He was an interesting character with, in academic circles anyway, somewhat famous. He had a reputation for being a deep and refined thinker which was what attracted me to take a course from him. he wanted a paper and I chose to write on the problem of objectivity which implied a view on what is reality.
(As you might imagine, I argued objectivity did not exist.) Apparently, due to the pleasing grade he gave me, he liked the paper. On the first page I wrote I was a theist and was therefore biased. He told me later in a seminar I was not biased, that bias was too strong of a word. He said it is more like this: assuming reality was like a baseball game with reporters from the home town and reporters from the visiting team each writing their perspective on what they saw. They will write from a different perspective and have a different slant, but bias is too strong a word for their differing perspectives. He said bias is different. For example, he said, supposing an individual is accused and charged with a very serious crime and the towns people are angry, demanding justice, and the accused was convicted in the media. The defense argued for a change in venue for the trial because no jury in that town would draw a conclusion based on the facts. A biased person doesn't care what the facts are. So, he told me, I wasn't biased. Instead, he said "We all have our own metaphysics". Indeed we do. he wasn't defensive nor out to get me, nor I out to get him. There was mutual respect for differing metaphysics, and an acknowledgement that in metaphysics, there is no proof. This idea some of you have that metaphysical assumptions should be or can be "proven" is a fallacy.
This relates to the most important thing Krauss said: We all have our beliefs and preconceptions.
The deeper thinkers are aware of and acknowledge their own preconceptions. The shallow ones imagine they have no beliefs.
"I want to know what atheists think proactively, as opposed to just negatively."
What is there to ponder? An atheist is one who lacks a belief in a god or gods. Period, Full stop. Nothing more.
Someone has advanced a proposition (in those case, theists propose a god), and the person receiving this proposition basically states, "I am listening, but you have not provided enough evidence for me to accept your proposition."
There is no negativity or preconceived positions, this is a case of one side making a proposition and the other stating that they are not convinced. This is a personal interaction, because for the same reason I will not buy a car from a used car salesman who will not allow me to examine the car but just states "trust me".
Is it wrong for me to investigate further, to collect more information (inspect the car) before deciding to make a decision or accept a position? Of course not, this is due diligence and not being a gullible fool.
So when you, Apollo, state there is a god, my response is "I am not convinced, please provide evidence."
"what besides nature do they think exists?"
Obviously they do not accept supernatural woo woo which can not be measured or tested.
Unless you can prove it exists?
Apollo, my mind is not closed, please provide evidence for your god.
Pretty sure Call has explained this concept quite recently in relation to discovery of the so-called 'god particle' .
Because I did not take science after year 11, I was a bit confused by the apparent claim made by Lawrence Krauss. IE that the universe came from nothing.
As I understand it, the simple explanation is that 'nothing' has different meaning to a physicist than it does to me . That for the physicist, 'nothing' refers to no particles within a specific space AND that such a place is inconceivably small . It doe NOT refer to a space say light years in every direction.
That's my understandingI . I welcome a better explanation, as long the explainer realises I'm a scientific illiterate and keeps it pretty simple. Imagine if you willI that I'm a literalist evangelical
NB: I am NOT asking Apollo because it seems to me that he looks at evidence only as a way of validating existing ideas and beliefs. That means he lacks intellectual honestly. Consequently, I feel free to dismiss anything he posts. Sincere apologies if I've misunderstood again.
The idea is much older than Krauss, It goes back at least to Pascual Jordan and George Gamow (1930's). They pointed out that while the solar system seems to contain a lot of energy, it also contains a lot of negative energy (in the form of gravitational energy), and speculated that these numbers might be equal in magnitude (that the total energy might be zero). In more recent times there have been attempts to calculate this total on larger scales and the results are within the margin of error of being zero.
The point is energy conservation. Presumably a state of "nothing" has 0 energy. Therefore, IF the universe came from nothing it must have a net total of 0 energy, which matches observation. Does that mean it happened that way? No. But it does allow this kind of speculation from violating the conservation of energy.
A similar argument can be made about linear momentum, angular momentum, and electric charge. That presumably the state of "nothing" has 0 linear momentum, 0 angular momentum, and 0 electric charge. And similarly the universe as we see it today seems to have 0 net linear momentum, 0 net angular momentum, and 0 net electric charge. Which again protects this speculation from violating conservation of linear momentum, angular momentum, and electric charge.
The punch line is there is a non-zero probability for a system to transform into any other system, so long as they share the same conserved properties. And that the universe and "nothing" seem to have the same conserved properties. Which is what makes this speculation of a universe from nothing, not explicitly violate any known laws.
I am not a physicist.
Imagine the deepest and most remote area of the universe, where any particle is at least a billion kilometers from any other particle. Is that nothing? No, because that seemingly empty space will still have light photons and other forms of radiation passing through. Additionally, it is subject to gravity and the warping of space time. To top it off, it is also subjuct to time.
I am not a theist and I understand that many describe their god concerning what it is not. You know the blather .. invisible, undetectable, yadda yadda yadda. But for this simple soul, the best definition of "nothing" is describing qualities it does not possess, namely mass, gravity, time, radiation, dimensions, anything else you can think of.
No, Krauss doesn't mean nothing when he uses the word nothing. He has a chapter in his book entitled something like "why nothing is something".
He is playing with words.
I do note that you are not asking me due to you not liking my perspective. I'd like to point out that a long time ago I blabbed in a social situation that I only read stuff that I already believed. One of my profs heard about it and in a tactful way told me that was stupid. You can restrict yourself to people you already believe if you want, but it isn't necessarily credible. I got the Krauss video from an acquaintance who is an atheist. I asked him for stuff that would challenge the theist view. i think it is important to study writers and thinkers who have a different perspective than oneself other wise one never grows.
"I do note that you are not asking me due to you not liking my perspective:'
Funny, I don't remember saying that. or at least that isn't what I meant. I hope I am not so bigoted is to simply reject ideas because they are expressed or simply because they are different.
What I thoughtI I said and what I meant to say is that I don't trust you because my impression is that you lack intellectual honesty.
Wouldn't be the first time I've misunderstood a person here. I apologise if I've misjudged you.
"I got the Krauss video from an acquaintance who is an atheist. I asked him for stuff that would challenge the theist view. i think it is important to study writers and thinkers who have a different perspective than oneself other wise one never grows."
Krauss is just one individual, he does not speak for me, and we may not share common perceptions. If you want to study Krauss, go ahead, buy his books, email him. But I don't know him apart from his name and to be frank, I don't care about his position.
But it is intellectually dishonest to attempt to classify all atheists under one umbrella concerning their positions or attitudes.
I will repeat this so you can not claim you did not know:
The sole factor that identifies atheists is a lack of belief in a god or gods.
I read your whole post as god of the gaps.
1. His quality statement, was a preamble to explaining what he means about "nothing".
2. You are posing a question, about atheists...which is an assumption. If theists or atheists were to put thought towards pre-big bang/inflation, the answer should be, I DON'T KNOW. However theists claim they do, and assert god without evidence.
3. Theists claim god without objective evidence. Atheists don't believe in gods as of the complete lack of objective evidence, its quite simple. Burden of proof dictates you to, put up, or shut up. Lawrence can mathematically hypothesize pre-big bang appearance of matter...others can hypothesize matters existence pre big-bang, which is almost a given seeing a singularity's existence is not in question...but without demonstrable evidence, it is just a hypothesis. Your god can not even be presented as a hypothesis, as zero objective evidence for basis of any god hypothesis exists.. I mean unless you would like to present some...LOL.
4. Non-existence is defined by theists lack of objective evidence. Period. Lets not forget this fact...as this lack of said evidence, will not change without empirical evidence. As a former christian, who eventually studied the KJV buybull, I applied the critical thought process I developed in my pre and post graduate years, seeking fact as a determinant of truth. To my dismay, this research led me to finding a complete disconnect with my christian beliefs, and reality. It is this disconnect with reality, that drives people to atheism. It absolutely makes sense to claim there is no evidence for God after one looks for objective evidence of a god, and finds nothing. Believing in something without said evidence, is delusional.
5. The big bang occurred, whether you like it or not...the objective evidence dictates this. Pre big bang, existence are filled with many hypothesis...just like Laurence's hypothesis. Credibility lays in the hypothesis, how it jives with what truth's we already know. This is why these hypothesis are presently more credible than a god.
Again, creationists like yourself, ignore facts and insert a god wherever and whenever they can, irreverent of reason. Without objective evidence of your version of a god, it is not reasonable to believe...in fact, it is a failure in reason and quite irrational. Unless you have some objective evidence of your god you can put forth? LOL.
What is really kewl, is that an atheists perspective, will always be defined by a theist.
I'm not too familiar with the god of the gaps idea. Never heard of it until I came here. If I understand it correctly it is a foolish idea. It seems to assume that the natural world is independent and autonomous, that what ever science can explain God had noting to do with it, and whatever science has not explained is the opening for God's actions to be posited. If that's what you mean by god of the gaps, I have no faith in it at all.
OK...funny how you use the term "science" and "faith" in the same paragraph. LOL. you agree with scientific endeavors and outcomes, yet need to feel gods presence for them to be? LOL. Sounds like a pretty big gap to me. Having objective evidence of your version of a god, is the only determinant of his existence...faith, or believing in something without said evidence, is not a determinant of existence. You might want to look into sensory innervation of the vagus nerve as your feeling for your god's presence...at least there is some science behind that.
Again, it's kewl how atheists perspective, is driven by theists, isn't it? LOL.
A god of the gaps polemic is when religious apologists point to a gap in our knowledge, then try to claim it is evidence for their deity. It's an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and a text book example is you implying that not fully understanding everything about how the universe originated is evidence for a deity.
Thanks. I don't employ or endorse the god of the gaps idea.
the thread is about the origin of the universe: What is your thoughts on the origin of the universe? Was there a beginning? or did the material of the universe always exist? What does the atheist perspective have to offer on the origin?
"What is your thoughts on the origin of the universe? Was there a beginning? or did the material of the universe always exist? What does the atheist perspective have to offer on the origin?"
WE DO NOT KNOW !!!
@Apollo Re: "What does the atheist perspective have to offer on the origin?"
...*shaking head in wonder*.... I swear, dude. Really? Do you realize you make a neutron star look light and fluffy? How many times do you have to be told by multiple people?: THERE IS NO ATHEIST PERSPECTIVE. Atheists simply DO NOT BELIEVE IN YOUR GOD..... PERIOD. Anything and everything outside of that is strictly up to the individual. You might as well have said, "What does the baseball player perspective have to offer on the origin?"
Have you considered night classes for Reading Comprehension, perhaps? Or maybe consult a neurologist for your lack of short-term memory? Just trying to be helpful.
Of course you do, take a look at these....
That is a god of the gaps polemic, as if your thread OP. Note the last sentnece, atheism isn't hiding behind a gap in our knowledge, this is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, a god of the gaps polemic, dear oh dear.
The "god of the gaps" is ...
"Mommy, why is there thunder"
"Bjørn, that is the gods having a rave in the clouds".
God of the gaps is substituting a rational and researched explanation for a phenomena and just saying "god did it".
Apollo, can you please provide evidence for a god?
The thread is about the origin of the universe according to an atheist. If you don't like Krauss' view, what is your view? At least Krauss stepped up to the plate and took some swings. That shows some attempt at atheism trying to mature. Currently atheism seems to be in an immature, incomplete state.
Disbelief in God, implies, willy nilly, that the only thing that exists is nature. Where did nature come from? did it always exist? What's your evidence for the origin of the universe? If it always existed, what's your evidence?
Luckily, we don't have to have all the answers, to be highly skeptical of your ludicrous beliefs.
"The thread is about the origin of the universe according to an atheist."
The origin of the universe is a science topic, whether an atheist or theist accepts scientific theories is up to them.
"If you don't like Krauss' view, what is your view?"
My view on the origin of the universe? I DO NOT KNOW. I follow a few interesting propositions, but that is all I am doing, observing.
"At least Krauss stepped up to the plate and took some swings. That shows some attempt at atheism trying to mature."
He wrote a book to make money. Whether his propositions are accepted by anyone is his problem.
There is no such thing as "atheism". To state it is immature is reaching for god's balls.
No it doesn't, this is still a lie.
Nope, wrong again, the opinion or beliefs of an individual atheist doesn't change the definition of atheism, which is still the lack or absence of belief in a deity, nothing more. This desperate desire to attach an importance to atheism is typical of theists, but as an atheist my atheism is no more significant to me than my lack of belief in voodoo or mermaids.
God of the gaps again, my atheism is based on the fact there is no objective evidence for any deity, I don't need to know how the universe originated.
How did the universe get started? I don't know. Therefore god must have done it. Or maybe it was Mickey Mouse. There's just as much evidence for either.
Your ignorance and my ignorance prove only one thing: That we don't know. Unlike you, I'm not sufficiently arrogant to claim that if I can't understand or know something, nobody can, now or ever. Also unlike you, I'm not going to build a roadblock called god on my path to greater understanding.